Idea #2 with doubts
Let's imagine two Catholics about to get married. This marriage they are about to go into is something specific. It's a sacrament within the Christian community under the authority of the [Catholic] Church; with its own distinct qualities, restrictions, and obligations. There are other things that the couple could imagine being called "marriage", for example a Muslim marriage, a Jewish marriage, or a non-religious marriage. But none of these things would do; it has to be a Catholic marriage or else it's basically illegitimate. (Actually, I've read of examples of the Church recognizing a pre-existing relationship as legitimate and giving it its "endorsement", but the point still stands.) Now after the couple has gone through the sacrament of marriage, they go down to the courthouse and register as married. Compared to the religious marriage, this legal formality is unimportant. It's just for legal and tax purposes.
We can imagine a similar Muslim couple who have to get married in a muslim ceremony, or a Jewish couple getting married in a synagogue. Or we can even imagine a non-religious couple whose marriage is something like a personal contract between the two of them. My point is that secular legal "marriage" should only be the government's recognition of an already-existing relationship. I would actually prefer it to be called a civil union, or registered partnership, or something else. A legal status like this could include any couple who decided to enter into it for reasons of convenience and prudence, even two non-married people who lived together and supported each other.
I would say that something like marriage is a social institution, or in some cases more specifically a religious institution, and I wish to deny a secular state the authority to define it.
Edit: Well, now a few days later, I have one hundred doubts about what I've written here. It's because we let the government legislate so many other "moral" issues. I was trying to say that a secular liberal state shouldn't get tangled up into Christian ethical law; both for the liberal reason that not everyone is a Christian, but also because a secular liberal state doesn't have legitimate authority over religious issues.
It seems like I tried to relegate the government into a kind of neutral, objective position. But of course it is impossible to have an ethical system that is "neutral and objective". It has to rest on some kind of foundation...
We can imagine a similar Muslim couple who have to get married in a muslim ceremony, or a Jewish couple getting married in a synagogue. Or we can even imagine a non-religious couple whose marriage is something like a personal contract between the two of them. My point is that secular legal "marriage" should only be the government's recognition of an already-existing relationship. I would actually prefer it to be called a civil union, or registered partnership, or something else. A legal status like this could include any couple who decided to enter into it for reasons of convenience and prudence, even two non-married people who lived together and supported each other.
I would say that something like marriage is a social institution, or in some cases more specifically a religious institution, and I wish to deny a secular state the authority to define it.
Edit: Well, now a few days later, I have one hundred doubts about what I've written here. It's because we let the government legislate so many other "moral" issues. I was trying to say that a secular liberal state shouldn't get tangled up into Christian ethical law; both for the liberal reason that not everyone is a Christian, but also because a secular liberal state doesn't have legitimate authority over religious issues.
It seems like I tried to relegate the government into a kind of neutral, objective position. But of course it is impossible to have an ethical system that is "neutral and objective". It has to rest on some kind of foundation...